Crop Sensors vs Full Frame :: Crop Or Crap?

[Braineack]

So this leaves me still not fully knowing but I really couldn't care too much.
If I had to replace my camera I know it wouldn't be a factor in buying a new one.
If it happened that the camera I wanted had one in it then so be it but I know for a fact, I will always be an amateur in photography, as its what I like to do.

correct. crop factor doesn't matter to most people.

but when you are ready to move up to a big-boy camera, it may be. 1. your lenses may not be compatiable and 2. you'll have to get used to the different FOV at the same focal length. 3. kicking yourself wishing you went FF sooner because of the outstanding DR and IQ those sensors provide over crop.

 

[bribrius]

So this leaves me still not fully knowing but I really couldn't care too much.
If I had to replace my camera I know it wouldn't be a factor in buying a new one.
If it happened that the camera I wanted had one in it then so be it but I know for a fact, I will always be an amateur in photography, as its what I like to do.

correct. crop factor doesn't matter to most people.

but when you are ready to move up to a big-boy camera, it may be. 1. your lenses may not be compatiable and 2. you'll have to get used to the different FOV at the same focal length. 3. kicking yourself wishing you went FF sooner because of the outstanding DR and IQ those sensors provide over crop.

yeah but what happens when it ends up sitting on the closet shelf most of the time because you dont want to lug it around?

 

[Derrel]

Here's the way brand evangelist videos come off to me.

Once somebody becomes a "brand evangelist", his YouTube and blog videos can easily become not much more than click-bait. When I see people showing how to rig up EIGHT Nikon SB-910 speedlights at $589 per unit, in order to get the same flash power as ONE cheap, used Speedotron Brown Line D604 power pack pack and one, single flash head, I start thinking, "Payed shill click-bait content here," or "Preferred loaner gear for him as long as the videos keep being made."

So, $589 x 8 speedlights is $4,712 for the light output, then add + a custom 8-flash mounting bracket and umbrella bracket for $499, and you have a $5,211 "solution" that could be bought from e-Bay for $450. Total. Look around for the videos where a "pro" uses a speedlight lash-up to shoot his 20 frames before the required 10-minute cool-down. Yeahhhhhh, riiiight.

I am not talking about Zack Arias in this example above, but another well-known brand evangelist who has no formal and visible relationship with Nikon...but who CONSTANTLY pitches bullsH*+ solutions that often cost a small fortune, when much better, purpose-built stuff is often available at lower investment. And often with BETTER results, and with MORE features, or greater capability, greater capacity. again...click bait or brand evangelist stuff is all over the web and all over YouTube.

The idea that a small-format 16-megapixel camera is identical to an $8,000 or $10,000 or $40,000 camera solution is just disingenuous. YES, most modern cameras are good enough for most uses. But the idea that a $400 70-300 VR or 70-300 VC lens is the same thing as a 300/2.8 lens on a high-end Canon or Nikon cameras are of equal performance is simply not accurate.

Same thing with comparing a mid-level Sony compact mirrorless against a low-end Nikon d-slr on women's soccer by the dPreview staff...it's simple...pocket cameras and not the equal of even the cheapest Nikon or Canon d-slr cameras for action work, even in daylight. The Nikon 70-300 VR lens way under-performs for action sports compared to a 70-200/2.8 AF-S or a 300/4 AF-S or a 300/2.8 AF-S lens. I've tried all those lenses on the same D3x camera body....the 300/2.8 blows the 300/4 AWAY in focusing over say 1,000 frames...the 70-300 VR will blow focus four or five times over one youth soccer match--on a good day that is.

The idea that everything is the same as everything else is just not supported by the facts--because if it were, we'd ALL be using the iPhone 6s...the best phone and best camera ever invented. Just ask Tim Cook.

 

[beagle100]

o.

cp.

yeah but what happens when it ends up sitting on the closet shelf most of the time because you dont want to lug it around?

that's when you start thinking about those cheap mirrorless cameras
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[Wasp1]

So thanks for the great info on this sensor thing.
I am getting a little more understanding on what it's all about now.
If I make this comparison I think that I might be close to what has been said here.

My 1st adventure into DSLR camera's was a Sony a390 after 3 year of use I knew I wanted to move up the list.
I bought another Sony but this is a a77. I had full intentions in keeping it.
Then I looked at a couple of shots I took with each camera and wow there was a massive difference.
In all manner of things.

So I think if I am making this as the sensor thing I should be close to what you are telling me.
Gee its good to learn for people who know what they are talking about.

 

[Watchful]

If i's no' Scottish, its crap!
Seriously though the opinions of Arias, Jines, Geddes or Adams will be given an amount of consideration that is directly proportional to the amount of time I have spent chatting with them in my home. The same amount as everyone else I have no desire to deal with or will ever attempt to meet with. That includes nearly all of the global population.
The only opinion, in matters of how I use money, that are of any consequence to me are my own and my family's.
I would hope its the same for everyone.

 

[fmw]

My first DSLR was the Nikon D80 which I chose because it outperformed the "professional" D1. I equipped it with some high end DX lenses and never looked back. If Nikon had had a 10 megapixel full frame DSLR at the time I probably would have gone that way. As it is I see no point in changing now since the DX format does everything I need to do. I view the difference as fairly trivial with the dense pixel resolution we have these days. But obviously there are those who will disagree with that.

 

[jcdeboever]

I liked the images a pro took using my D3300 and lens, I was embarrassed and amazed at the same time. I took images on his full frame and they were just as crappy as the ones I was getting on my D3300. We then compared a photo set from each camera on the same subject, that's when I realized I have a lot to learn. So in my case, I will consider upgrading when I can consistently produce good images using my D3300.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[crzyfotopeeple]

My first DSLR was the Nikon D80 which I chose because it outperformed the "professional" D1. I equipped it with some high end DX lenses and never looked back. If Nikon had had a 10 megapixel full frame DSLR at the time I probably would have gone that way. As it is I see no point in changing now since the DX format does everything I need to do. I view the difference as fairly trivial with the dense pixel resolution we have these days. But obviously there are those who will disagree with that.

I think your pretty much spot on. I have used both (currently d810) and I have used Fuji amd liked a lot about the fuji. I would say image quality was never really a concern with the Fuji. It's just that the Nikon in my opinion is more versatile and i love the 64iso.

 

[fmw]

t

My first DSLR was the Nikon D80 which I chose because it outperformed the "professional" D1. I equipped it with some high end DX lenses and never looked back. If Nikon had had a 10 megapixel full frame DSLR at the time I probably would have gone that way. As it is I see no point in changing now since the DX format does everything I need to do. I view the difference as fairly trivial with the dense pixel resolution we have these days. But obviously there are those who will disagree with that.

I think your pretty much spot on. I have used both (currently d810) and I have used Fuji amd liked a lot about the fuji. I would say image quality was never really a concern with the Fuji. It's just that the Nikon in my opinion is more versatile and i love the 64iso.

Back in the film days, the Fuji 35mm cameras were equipped with the Nikon F mount. I had one. It did the job just fine. I think Fuji only made lenses for their medium format shooters back then. For 35mm they simply took advantage of the huge supply of Nikkors. It appears they don't do that any more.

 

[Ysarex87 81]

t

My first DSLR was the Nikon D80 which I chose because it outperformed the "professional" D1. I equipped it with some high end DX lenses and never looked back. If Nikon had had a 10 megapixel full frame DSLR at the time I probably would have gone that way. As it is I see no point in changing now since the DX format does everything I need to do. I view the difference as fairly trivial with the dense pixel resolution we have these days. But obviously there are those who will disagree with that.

I think your pretty much spot on. I have used both (currently d810) and I have used Fuji amd liked a lot about the fuji. I would say image quality was never really a concern with the Fuji. It's just that the Nikon in my opinion is more versatile and i love the 64iso.

Back in the film days, the Fuji 35mm cameras were equipped with the Nikon F mount. I had one. It did the job just fine. I think Fuji only made lenses for their medium format shooters back then. For 35mm they simply took advantage of the huge supply of Nikkors. It appears they don't do that any more.

Back in the film days Fuji made 35mm SLR cameras with their own lens mount and their own Fuji lenses.

Joe

 

[fmw]

t

My first DSLR was the Nikon D80 which I chose because it outperformed the "professional" D1. I equipped it with some high end DX lenses and never looked back. If Nikon had had a 10 megapixel full frame DSLR at the time I probably would have gone that way. As it is I see no point in changing now since the DX format does everything I need to do. I view the difference as fairly trivial with the dense pixel resolution we have these days. But obviously there are those who will disagree with that.

I think your pretty much spot on. I have used both (currently d810) and I have used Fuji amd liked a lot about the fuji. I would say image quality was never really a concern with the Fuji. It's just that the Nikon in my opinion is more versatile and i love the 64iso.

Back in the film days, the Fuji 35mm cameras were equipped with the Nikon F mount. I had one. It did the job just fine. I think Fuji only made lenses for their medium format shooters back then. For 35mm they simply took advantage of the huge supply of Nikkors. It appears they don't do that any more.

Back in the film days Fuji made 35mm SLR cameras with their own lens mount and their own Fuji lenses.

Joe

View attachment 119540

Thanks for the correction. I had a Fuji that had a Nikon F mount. Apparently they made both.

 

[robbins.photo]

My first DSLR was the Nikon D80 which I chose because it outperformed the "professional" D1. I equipped it with some high end DX lenses and never looked back. If Nikon had had a 10 megapixel full frame DSLR at the time I probably would have gone that way. As it is I see no point in changing now since the DX format does everything I need to do. I view the difference as fairly trivial with the dense pixel resolution we have these days. But obviously there are those who will disagree with that.

Well there are those who will disagree with that because not everyone shoots the same thing, the same way.

In a studio where you control the lighting and have control over your distance to the subject the lowlight abilities are no longer as crucial and honestly for the most part the pixel density/mp rating isn't usually much of an issue either.

For me the difference between full frame and DX format is extremely pronounced, I do a lot of shooting indoors in situations where I cannot use a flash. As a result the larger FX sensor gives me much better results than what a DX sensor can provide.

I also am often shooting in situations where I can't get closer to my subjects and will often have to resort to cropping photos, as a result a higher MP sensor makes a big difference as well.

So really neither point of view is "wrong". You don't need an FX sensor or a high mp if you control a lot of these other variables, you can produce some outstanding shots even with a D80. In my case however, I couldn't even begin to produce the kind of shots I can with my D600 on a D80, because I don't control the lighting or distance to subject, I have to just deal with whatever the current conditions are to the best of my ability.

So really it's shooting situation that makes that determination..

 

[fmw]

I won't debate each comment with you mostly because I'm to lazy to do so. I said the difference between the formats is trivial and you said it is pronounced. We'll just leave it at that.

 

[robbins.photo]

I won't debate each comment with you mostly because I'm to lazy to do so. I said the difference between the formats is trivial and you said it is pronounced. We'll just leave it at that.

So, basically I'm wrong and you shouldn't have to back that up with anything trivial, like you know, facts or logic? Lol.. okdoke, I guess we can leave it at that.

Or you can actually go out of your way to read what was posted and realize that what I said was that in some situations the differences are, as you stated, trivial, and in some situations, as I indicated, they are pronounced. It depends on the shooting situation of course, which is something one should consider before deciding if FX is really going to benefit them enough to make it worth the extra expense.